Conclusion 185 



I should be very glad to come across some of the " little 

 consideration " which will show this. I have searched for 

 it far and wide, and have never been able to find it. 



I think Professor Huxley has been exercising some of 

 his ineradicable tendency to try to make things clear in 

 the article on Evolution, already so often quoted from. 

 We find him (p. 750) pooh-poohing Lamarck, yet on the 

 next page he says, " How far ' natural selection ' suffices 

 for the production of species remains to be seen." And 

 this when " natural selection " was already so nearly of 

 age ! Why, to those who know how to read between a 

 philosopher's Hnes, the sentence comes to very nearly the 

 same as a declaration that the writer has no great opinion 

 of " natural selection." Professor Huxley continues, 

 " Few can doubt that, if not the whole cause, it is a very 

 important factor in that operation." A philosopher's 

 words should be weighed carefully, and when Professor 

 Huxley says " few can doubt," we must remember that 

 he may be including himself among the few whom he 

 considers to have the power of doubting on this matter. 

 He does not say " few will," but " few can " doubt, as 

 though it were only the enlightened who would have the 

 power of doing so. Certainly " nature," — for this is what 

 " natural selection " comes to, — is rather an important 

 factor in the operation, but we do not gain much by being 

 told so. If, however, Professor Huxley neither beheves 

 in the origin of species, through sense of need on the part 

 of animals themselves, nor yet in " natural selection," we 

 should be glad to know what he does believe in. 



The battle is one of greater importance than appears at 

 first sight. It is a battle between teleology and non- 

 teleology, between the purposiveness and the non-purpo- 

 siveness of the organs in animal and vegetable bodies. 

 According to Erasmus Darwin, Lamarck, and Paley, 

 organs are purposive ; according to Mr. Darwin and his 

 followers, they are not purposive. But the main argu- 

 ments against the system of Dr. Erasmus Darwin are 



